Would laugh if this Hazard was the next Kezman, he fancied himself abit too!

It's okay, we will sign Nick Powell.

United refuse to pay 'silly money', unless of course it's on debt, in which instance it suddenly becomes more than acceptable.
Pay agents' fees for negotiating deals for world class players? Just wrong and endemic of what's wrong in modern-day soccer. Pay your own family for their 'consultancy'? Done. Glazernomics.



35 goals in 54 appearances for his J-League club. 49 Bundesliga games for Dortmund with 21 goals and 13 assists.
German soccer scribe, Raphael Honigstein has said the Kagawa to United transfer is nearly completed with the fee likely to be around £14m rising to £20m.

What do people think of the new FA rules with regards to junior football? 5v5 for U7s and U8s, then 7v7 for U9s and U10s, then 9v9 for U11s and U12s.

I can see where they are trying to go, reduing the number of players means there is more space and players don't just kick the ball straight away like they do in most junior games in this country. However, in reality it's just likely to mean far fewer kids get the opportunity to play at all. I know where I live and where my kids are playing, there are very few teams. My youngest has just started playing matches and there are only 4 teams that have been set up. With it now being 5 v 5 etc, what happens to the other kids? There are 17 kids at his club currently and they only have a couple of coaches. It has been suggested they run more than one team, but they said there isn't the finances to do it. So there are 12 kids who won't get a game there, how many of those will just lose interest and leave?

I don't think it goes far enough either. 5 v 5 for young kids is great. But they aren't being taught how to play the game properly at all. Reducing the size of the pitch and the number of players won't affect much if they can't improve the standard of coaching at junior level.

When I was a kid the pitch we used for school matches was full size and on a slope. If we played downhill in the first half we could be 5 up at half time and the game would be over.

I think they should look at the way that kids, when left to their own devices, would organise a game. It would rarely be on a full size pitch with standard sized goals, would be a freer form of the game without offsides or throw ins. It would be competitive but with teams carefully selected to avoid mis matches. That's how to make it more enjoyable and get more kids playing. Get them interested early and worry about structure and playing properly later

I think it's the core mechanics of the game we're missing out on in this country. The ability to control the ball, turn and pass. I watched a side from Holland play in a tournament over here the other week and their warm up was passing the ball to a lad stood in the middle of the pitch and walking around him. He would pass it back and receive the ball from the next one. One touch passes, either foot. As they walked round they increased the speed and the volume of the passes until the kid in the middle messed up, then someone else went in. The English lads just stood at the other end being made to do shuttle runs and shooting at the keeper. The games I watched typically went into double figures until the final when the Dutch for some reason played 4 girls and a keeper instead of the lads that had been winning.

A quick reminder for everyone with Uncle Rupert's Satellite dish

Tonight, ESPN classic (channel 429) @ 10 p.m. are showing one of the best footy matches ever.
I wont spoil it for those who don't know the outcome, just don't miss it. Non-stop action.

I'm just praying they have the BBC commentary, with Motty going beserk at the end "I've not seen a match like this in years".

For those who read this too late, there's a repeat @ 11:50 a.m. tomorrow.

Enjoy. I will.

For me, growing up as a lad and seeing lads growing up now, there seems to be an emphasis on winning too much. Any kid with his head screwed on will want to win, but kids grow up with men balling at them from such an age. I know as a lad I'd worry what parents would shout from the sidelines, coaches too. I've read that in other countries, teams spend far more time training and putting emphasis on 'fun' and 'ability'. Go to a training session at a grass-roots football side and you'll see kids doing laps, a few shuttle runs and a few stretches. Between each 'session' they'll spend time hammering the ball at the goalkeeper, or trying long, raking passes to their mates. After that, it's the routine match where people get picked, or the coach picks the team. It usually ends in a few arguments and very little growth. That's the biggest problem in England, players grow into athletes, but none of our players seem to grow into footballers.

I think you summed it up in your last sentence, Roddy
I've a mate, who's eldest lad has been passed from pillar to post between the academies of clubs, over the last few years.
It's not that he's not got the ability (he has). It's the fact that, at 16, he's not got the build of someone 6 years his senior.
Lots of managers of teams (in this country), like to fill their sides full of muscle-men, rather than have skillful players.
THIS IS NOT A RACIST COMMENT, but you only have to look at English football, and it's chock-a-block with African men, who are built like brick pooh houses, but, aren't that great with the ball at their feet. Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule, but there are plenty who are playing because of their "presence"

To be honest I'm not sure that quality of coaching, or the approach to coaching, makes that much difference apart from with the very elite coaches. Its a very simple equation, the more people that participate in a sport at all levels the more succesful and the higher are the standards in that country.

Its all about increasing the size of the talent pool. Brazil have dominated football because they have three times as many players, at all levels, than any other country. New Zealand has the most RU players. The Aussies overtook GB at RL when their total number of players started to significantly exceed GB's. The failure of Scotland to produce players with the talent of Law, Dalglish, Bremner, Gray, Gemmill, Johnstone etc is primarily due to a catastrophic decline in the number of kids playing the game.

If more kids are encouraged to play the game, more top quality players will emerge. And to get kids playing the game youth football has to be played in a way that they will enjoy.

One of my friends was at Seville in the mid 90's as an Under 16's player(spanish) I remember him telling me that when your 8,9,10 + upto the gae of 14 that there aren't any league tables in junior football in spain, that the emphasis was put on enjoying the game and participating in sport, not the "win at all costs" british bulldog spirit.

A decent looking documentary about Euro 96. Might have to watch it later. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18077057

A decent looking documentary about Euro 96. Might have to watch it later. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18077057

Grass roots in Spain is so far ahead of england that its impossible for England to catch up, or get anywhere close

But having fewer players on the pitch will mean fewer kids get the opportunity. There are very few junior teams these days due to the cost. These changes are going to mean an awful lot of kids quit football as they can't get into a team. Like I said before there are only 4 teams currently registered at my son's age group and the one he plays for has 17 kids. Moving to 5 a side will mean probably 10 of those kids will either just keep training without playing matches or quit.

In this country we're at a massive disadvantage because of the climate. For half the year kids simply cannot play football socially of an evening as it's dark, freezing or raining. In the Spain's and Brazil's it's not the case, they've got masses more sunshine hours. Having more playing will obviously correlate to more elite players, but there is so much that can be done to improve the standard generally.